# C_2019004EN.01004201.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/42

---

Action brought on 8 November 2018 — VodafoneZiggo Group v Commission

(Case T-660/18)

(2019/C 4/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VodafoneZiggo Group BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Knibbeler and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 30 August 2018 concerning Cases NL/2018/2099 and NL/2018/2100: Wholesale fixed access market in the Netherlands, with reference C(2018) 5848 final; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 30 August 2018 concerning Cases NL/2018/2099 and NL/2018/2100: Wholesale fixed access market in the Netherlands, with reference C(2018) 5848 final; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a misapplication and misreading of Articles 7 and 7a of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (the Framework Directive)
  In this regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision presents a number of critical findings in relation to the Dutch national regulatory authority’s draft decision (the 2018 WFA Decision), which are qualified as comments but which in fact unequivocally fulfil the criteria for a finding of serious doubts. The applicant further claims that each of these observations in fact concern, by any objective standard, serious doubts requiring the Commission to conduct an in-depth investigation pursuant to Articles 7(4) and 7a(1) of the Framework Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a misapplication and misreading of Articles 7 and 7a of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (the Framework Directive)

In this regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision presents a number of critical findings in relation to the Dutch national regulatory authority’s draft decision (the 2018 WFA Decision), which are qualified as comments but which in fact unequivocally fulfil the criteria for a finding of serious doubts. The applicant further claims that each of these observations in fact concern, by any objective standard, serious doubts requiring the Commission to conduct an in-depth investigation pursuant to Articles 7(4) and 7a(1) of the Framework Directive.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging evident errors of assessment, a misapplication of Article 7 of the Framework Directive and a lack of diligent investigation






  — | In this regard, the applicant submits that by accepting, in the contested decision, the joint significant market power (the joint SMP) findings in the 2018 WFA Decision, whereas these manifestly raise serious doubts within the meaning of Article 7(4) of the Framework Directive, the Commission misapplied Articles 7 and 7a of the Framework Directive and committed manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging evident errors of assessment, a misapplication of Article 7 of the Framework Directive and a lack of diligent investigation

—

In this regard, the applicant submits that by accepting, in the contested decision, the joint significant market power (the joint SMP) findings in the 2018 WFA Decision, whereas these manifestly raise serious doubts within the meaning of Article 7(4) of the Framework Directive, the Commission misapplied Articles 7 and 7a of the Framework Directive and committed manifest errors of assessment.

| — | Alternatively, the applicant claims that the Commission should in any event have diligently investigated the matter, in view of (i) the manifest insufficiency of the joint SMP analysis by the Dutch national regulatory authority if set off against the joint SMP assessment framework as established by the Commission in its guidelines (evident error of assessment) and (ii) the Commission’s own decisional precedents, which demonstrate that there is no scope for any finding of joint SMP on the relevant markets (inconsistency). |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, the applicant claims that the Commission should in any event have diligently investigated the matter, in view of (i) the manifest insufficiency of the joint SMP analysis by the Dutch national regulatory authority if set off against the joint SMP assessment framework as established by the Commission in its guidelines (evident error of assessment) and (ii) the Commission’s own decisional precedents, which demonstrate that there is no scope for any finding of joint SMP on the relevant markets (inconsistency).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons resulting in an infringement of Article 296 TFEU






  — | In this regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision contains insufficient reasoning in regard of critical elements of the 2018 WFA Decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons resulting in an infringement of Article 296 TFEU

—

In this regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision contains insufficient reasoning in regard of critical elements of the 2018 WFA Decision.

| — | Moreover, the applicant claims that on other determinative findings, the contested decision is overly brief or contradictory. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, the applicant claims that on other determinative findings, the contested decision is overly brief or contradictory.

---

(1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33).

---